An Inconvenient Tooth

“An Inconvenient Tooth” is a documentary film by Guy Wagner about fluoride. It was released September 6th, 2012 at the city hall in Portland, Oregon. On the same day a public hearing was held before the five-member City Council about whether or not the city should fluoridate its water supplies.



This is a good, but a little known documentary about water fluoridation. Directed and edited by Brandon Kovatch.


Cancer Deaths Linked to Water Fluoridation

 “When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.”

— Dr. Dean Burk (1904-1988) former head of National Cancer Institute Research

This interview was recorded live in Holland in the 1970′s, and as a result of it being broadcast, 100,000 people took to the streets and had fluoride removed immediately.

In Dr. Dean Burk’s own words; “this amounts to public murder on a grand scale, it is a public crime, it would be, to put fluoride in the drinking water of people”.

Dr. Dean Burk co-authored one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry, The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants, published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934.

In 1937, Dean became a co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), and headed its Cytochemistry department for over three decades.

Dean was initially skeptical that there was any link between fluoridation and cancer but later came to believe ardently that fluoride was a major carcinogen, responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. With his NCI credentials, he was the most impressive witness the anti-fluoridation forces around the world had. Needless to say, this role did not endear him to the public health establishment, which fought for its right to medicate the entire public with fluoride in the public drinking water in the name of preventing tooth decay among children.


Poisoned Horses

The story of the Justus horses of Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Kathy and Wayne Justus were the proud owners of beautiful quarter horses whose health began to decline precipitously for mysterious reasons … resulting in death. Horrified and bewildered, the Colorado couple examined everything in the horses’ lives to determine what was wrong. The connection was finally made … fluoridation of the city’s drinking water.  An unforgettable DVD, and just about all you need to demonstrate the destructive effects of fluoride.

Produced by David Kennedy, DDS. Copyright 2008.



The links to the published peer reviewed scientific manuscripts and editorials in the journal FLUORIDE The Quarterly Journal of the International Society For Fluoride Research are:


1st peer reviewed scientific manuscript on horses by Dr. Lennart P. Krook and Cathy Justus “FLUORIDE POISONING OF HORSES FROM ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER”

2nd peer reviewed scientific manuscript on horses by Cathy Justus and Lennart P. Krook “ALLERGY IN HORSES FROM ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER”

3rd peer reviewed scientific manuscript on horses by Pixi Macicek and Dr. Lennart Krook “FLUOROSIS IN HORSES DRINKING ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER”

Editorial on equines by Dr. Bruce Spittle: “FLUORIDE TOXICITY AND DONKEYS”

4th peer reviewed scientific manuscript on equines by S.L Choubisa, Vdaipur, India “OSTEO-DENTAL FLUOROSIS IN DOMESTIC HORSES AND DONKEYS IN RAJASTHAN, INDIA”



New Study Fails to Refute Fluoride-Osteosarcoma Link

A paper in the Journal of Dental Research by dentist Chester Douglass and colleagues, An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma, (7/28/11) claims to show no association between fluoride bone levels and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. However, Douglass’ study has serious scientific flaws and is incapable of disproving a previous study (Bassin et al., 2006) which linked water fluoridation to osteosarcoma, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Bassin found a 500% to 600% increased risk for young boys, exposed to fluoride in their 6th to 8th years, of later developing osteosarcoma.  Douglass’ study does not address exposure during this critical period because it measured the level of fluoride in bone, which accumulates fluoride over a lifetime.  These bone levels provide no information about when the person was exposed to fluoride.

Not only does Douglass’ study fail to refute Bassin’s main finding, it suffers from other serious weaknesses:

1) Douglass’ study was much smaller and weaker than Bassin’s.  It had only 20 control subjects under age 30, a fifth of Bassin’s.  For this key age group, Douglass’ study was so small it could provide no reliable conclusions. Even Douglassadmitted this serious limitation.

2) Douglass’ choice of comparison group is suspect. Douglass compared the bone fluoride level of patients with osteosarcoma to “controls” with other forms of bone cancer. If fluoride also causes these other bone cancer types, then one would not expect to find any difference in bone fluoride between these groups. It is biologically plausible that fluoride could cause other bone cancers because it reaches such high concentrations in bone.  One of the only studies of fluoride and non-osteosarcoma bone cancers did find a link, but this evidence was never mentioned by Douglass.

3) The controls were severely mismatched to the cases. Controls were much older (median 41 yrs) than the cases (18 yrs). The risk of osteosarcoma is highly age-dependent. Also, fluoride builds up in bone with age. Given Douglass’ small sample size, it is unlikely he could have adequately compensated for the gross mismatch in age, especially because of these two simultaneous age dependencies. The groups were also mismatched on sex ratio, and osteosarcoma risk is well known to be sex dependent. Properly adjusting for sex and age would be virtually impossible.

In 2001, Douglass signed off on Elise Bassin’s Ph.D. dissertation which found the strong association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. When it was later published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2006, Cancer Causes and Control, an accompanying letter from Douglass claimed that his “larger” study would eventually refute Bassin’s findings. But Douglass also told a Fox News reporter that Bassin “… did a good job. She had a good group of people advising her. And it’s a nice—it’s a nice analysis. There’s nothing wrong with that analysis.”

Now that Douglass’ study is finally published, it is clearly incapable of refuting Bassin’s work.  According to FAN director, Paul Connett, Ph.D., “Bassin’s study was a high quality product, Douglass’ study was not.”

Chris Neurath, FAN’s Research Director, points out “Even though Douglass collected extensive fluoride exposure histories from hundreds of other controls, that data was ignored in this paper. FAN is calling for the release of all of the Douglass data. The only way to get to the bottom of Douglass’ two decade’s study is to make the data available for any independent researcher to check and do the analyses which Douglass has failed to provide. The public has paid millions for this data, why is most of it still behind locked doors?”

One reason is suggested in Douglass’ conflict-of-interest declaration where he says he has “… written reviews of the literature for several companies that sell, reimburse for, or do research on preventive dentistry products, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Colgate-Palmolive, Dentsply, Quintile, Delta Dental Plans….”

Omitted was his paid editorship of Colgate’s promotional dental newsletter, which regularly contains advertisements for Colgate’s fluoride products.

The International Association of Dental Research (IADR), publishers of The Journal of Dental Research, has a history of promoting fluoridation.

Connett says, “In my opinion, it seems that Douglass is more interested in protecting fluoride than investigating this issue objectively. Bassin’s work suggests fluoridation may be causing a frequently fatal cancer in teenage boys. Douglass, after five years of trying, has failed to refute this disturbing evidence. How long will fluoridation promoters be allowed to continue to spin this issue?”

“Why are dentists – especially those who have shown a strong interest in protecting the water fluoridation program – conducting and publishing cancer research, anyway?” asks Connett.

A more detailed critique of Douglass’ paper will be posted soon at http://www.FluorideAction.Net